Even if he does get indicted, Dick Cheney should be thrown out of office immediately :

Vice President Cheney and his chief of staff, I. Lewis “Scooter” Libby, overruling advice from some White House political staffers and lawyers, decided to withhold crucial documents from the Senate Intelligence Committee in 2004 when the panel was investigating the use of pre-war intelligence that erroneously concluded Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction, according to Bush administration and congressional sources.

Among the White House materials withheld from the committee were Libby-authored passages in drafts of a speech that then-Secretary of State Colin L. Powell delivered to the United Nations in February 2003 to argue the Bush administration’s case for war with Iraq, according to congressional and administration sources. The withheld documents also included intelligence data that Cheney’s office — and Libby in particular — pushed to be included in Powell’s speech, the sources said.

United States Constitution, Article II, section 4 :

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

U.S. Code, Title 18, Section 1001 :

(a) Except as otherwise provided in this section, whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the Government of the United States, knowingly and willfully– (1) falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact; (2) makes any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation; or (3) makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or entry; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both.

I wonder if subsection (3) would also apply to a State of the Union address.

Bush Gives Christ SCOTUS Nod
^{Monday, November 21, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) - Reeling from the rebuke he received over the nomination of Harriet Miers, George Bush nominated former carpenter Jesus Harold Christ today to the nation’s highest court. “I’ve been saying for years now that he’s my favorite philosopher,” the President remarked, “so I think the American people will be proud when they get to know J.C.’s judicial philosophicalness.”

Bush called on the Senate to “review every aspect of Jesus’ qualifications fairly and with haste. It’s important that we get an up-down vote on this nomination by the end of the year”.

Holy Nomination Deemed Controversial
^{Wednesday, November 23, 2005}

WASHINGTON (NYT) - Despite being the figurehead of one of the world’s largest religions, the nomination of Jesus Christ to replace Sandra Day O’Connor on the Supreme Court is getting a mixed reaction on the Hill from Democrats — and Republicans.

“Who is this guy?”, universally-beloved maverick John McCain asked reporters. “I find it hard to believe that this guy has gone thirty-three years without ever taking a stand on Roe v. Wade.”

In an off-the record interview with the Times, Senator Chuck Schumer added “He seems like a nice guy, but I’ll need to see what comes out during the conformation process before making any decisions”.

Conservatives Revolt Over Jesus
^{Tuesday, December 6, 2005}

WASHINGTON (UPI) - In a strong blow to President Bush, conservative activists have rallied against the nomination of Jesus Christ to the Supreme Court.

“We were promised a strict constructionist,” television panhandler Pat Robertson told reporters. “We don’t know anything about his views on gay marriage, stem cells, or any other important issues. God-fearing Christians like me who gave this President the White House deserve to know where this nominee stands.”

The Christ nomination is seen as the latest rebuke for a President who, in recent weeks, has seen a stock market crash, the execution of top aides for treason, and the flooding of New Orleans by Hurricanes Katrina, Rita, and Gamma.

Bush Seeks Support Over Court Pick
^{Monday, December 12, 2005}

CRAWFORD (Reuters) - Interrupting his nine-week holiday break, the President sought to ease conservative concerns over his increasingly controversial pick for the Supreme Court.

“I know his heart,” Bush reassured his supporters,” and he knows mine. After all, he lives in it.”

Speaking Sunday on Meet The Press, Senate Judiciary Chairman Arlen Specter remained skeptical. “I haven’t seen anything to convince me that Jesus will faithfully interpret the constitution. Raising the dead and turning water into wine may be neat party tricks, but the American people deserve more.”

Documents Reveal Softer Side of Nominee
^{Friday, December 16, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a development that Senate Judiciary staffers described as “troubling”, the White House today released a pile of documents in an attempt to bolster its nomination of Jesus Christ to the nation’s top court.

“The meek shall inherit the Earth? Turn the other cheek? I don’t think we can afford a Supreme Court justice who’s weak on terror,” a top Republican official said.

Though short on judicial experience, the documents reveal a nominee with a long career dedicated to helping the poor, comforting the afflicted, and spreading the word of god.

“He might as well have nominated Robin Hood,” joked one GOP leader. “Christ’s dedication to redistributing wealth puts him far outside the mainstream. He’s an extremist in the Souter/Kennedy mold.”

Group Runs Ad Urging Jesus Filibuster
^{Monday, December 19, 2005}

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Putting the nomination of Jesus in further danger, the conservative group Christians Against Christ began airing ads today urging Senate Republicans to filibuster the upcoming Supreme Court confirmation hearings.

Transcript of C.A.C. ad, “Who is this Jesus?”

ANNOUNCER : Liberal Democrats in the Senate agree on the nomination of Jesus Christ.

[begin video]
SEN. SCHUMER : He seems like a nice guy -
[end video}

ANNOUNCER : What do they know that we don’t? We can’t have another liberal activist on the Supreme Court. Call your Senator today and tell them to filibuster Jesus. America deserves better.

Bush Remains Confident On Nominee
^{Friday, December 23, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) - Speaking via teleconference at a birthday party for his embattled Supreme Court pick, the President reiterated his support for Jesus Christ. “Jesus has a great heart,” Bush said. ” and I know that he’ll be the same person in twenty years that he is today.”

Seeking to quell criticism over leaked memos that reveal opposition to the death penalty, Administration officials publicly rallied behind Christ, but questions remain about whether or not Christ will be able to make it out of the Senate Judiciary committee.

“People are worried around here,” a White House aide told reporters. “Let’s pretend that we decided to change our minds about this Jesus nomination…not that we are, ummm…do you have any ideas??”

Decrying Pharisees, Christ Withdraws Nomination
^{Monday, December 26, 2005}

WASHINGTON (AP) - In a letter to the President today, Supreme Court nominee Jesus H. Christ withdrew his nomination. Though it had become increasingly clear that Jesus lacked the votes in the Senate needed to be confirmed, Bush had as recently as this weekend reaffirmed his support for Christ.

Speaking out against the hypocrisy of his critics, Jesus wrote to the President “Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?”

Pressed for a comment at his Crawford ranch, the President asked “Jesus who?”

I’d say “Wag The Dog”, but it would be rude to refer to Harriet Miers in that way. Rather, lemme just say that the most egregious part of the Miers nomination had nothing to do with the reason she withdrew. At least, I don’t remember any conservatives making a big deal out of the fact that she’s a crony. Next time around, Bush will make sure to pick a crony that’s more qualified and is easier to confirm. Like I said earlier, I’d be shocked if the next nomination is anyone but Alberto Gonzales.

Interesting comment from my latest anti-Fitzmas post that I think should be addressed on its own :

I disagree that it’s not a partisan game. Everything is a partisan game. You’re telling me when Fox News repeats the phrase “The Criminalization of Politics” over and over…that’s not partisan?

I’d argue that the “partisan game” is separate from the grand jury process to which liberals are just an interested bystander. Not a single word of the rhetoric from the left of right is going to change whether or not charges are filed.

That said, perhaps we should discuss what the political response is to a string of indictments. I don’t think treating the indictment day like a holiday or implying that Fitzgerald is on our side are in our best interests since it implies that (a) liberals see harm to our national security as a petty game of political “gotcha” and (b) that Patrick Fitzgerald is motivated by politics. Despite being the namesake of this goofy pseudo-holiday, Patrick Fitzgerald doesn’t give a damn about liberal causes and isn’t out to nail the Bush Administration.

Sure, I’ll be happy to see Bush Administration officials indicted, but I’m not going to sing “Fitzmas carols”. I’m going to contact my local media about connecting the dots between the leaking of Valerie Plame’s identity with the larger issue of the lies that led us into Iraq. I’m going to contact my local representatives and demand that any unindicted Administration officials be censured for lying to the public to cover-up for those indicted. And I’m going to do everything in my power to educate the public about the corruption of the Republican majority and ensure that the House and the Senate are in Democratic hands in 2007.

Take off your party hat and do something a little more constructive. The assholes are still going to be in charge next week, next month, and next year. Just because GOP corruption is catching up to some of the players doesn’t mean that the problems plaguing the Democratic party are going to magically go away.

UPDATE : For example, this is the wrong way to win the “political game”.

Following up on my brief post the other day, SnoodGuy notes over at DailyKos that this Fitzmas shit is getting old :

Am I the only one troubled by the triumphalism on the left about Fitzgerald’s investigation? I felt something cold in my stomach when I saw the term “Fitzmas” on this site last week. I’m all for seeing these crooks go down, but I think this air of celebration isn’t helping us - in fact, it reminds me of the Republicans before the impeachment process, and we know how well that went for them. Two main points below…

Whatever the charges or eventual results of this turn out to be, it’s not a happy day in our country if people at the highest level of government are committing crimes. We shouldn’t celebrate it.

If we, as Democrats/liberals treat this with festival gusto, we make the whole process look like a partisan gotcha instead of a criminal investigation. So far, Fitzgerald has been apparently professional, detail-oriented, and very terse with the press. Completely unlike, say, Ken Starr and his clown show. I like it that way.

This shouldn’t be a Democrat/Republican thing, it should be an American thing. The more we act like the Republicans did with Clinton’s impeachment, the more the public will see it in the same light - standard partisan politics - and the less chance we have of using this to highlight the flaws of the rest of the criminal, hypocritical, boneheaded, amoral Republican agenda.

This isn’t a partisan game and it’s not funny. Treating the indictments of government officials like a holiday is pretty childish coming from a left-wing so politically neutered that we have to rely on a grand jury to score political points for us. So wipe that smile off your face. George W. Bush is going to be President for the next three years. The next chance the Democrats have to regain the Senate and the House is more than a year away, but despite every Republican misstep that’s happened lately, it’s still doubtful that Democrats will be able to get their shit together well enough to swing either body. You want to celebrate? Try winning an election first. Just because your opponent fell doesn’t mean you knocked him down.

You say “schadenfreude”, I say “fucking embarrassment”.

David Corn had a pretty big scoop the other day that’s only reinforced by today’s Plame
rumor du jour :

“Two words we should think about: sealed indictments.” That was said to me by a trustworthy Washington reporter who has been covering the Plame/CIA leak case. He wasn’t making a prediction; he was raising a possibility. It could be that special prosecutor Patrick Fitzgerald might choose to file sealed indictments before the grand jury expires at the end of next week. That would mean that the names of the indicted would be unknown to the public–unless the information leaked.

Which would really mean that the White House talking point about not commenting on “an ongoing investigation” will morph into something like “we would be in contempt of the court if we were to discuss the contents of a sealed indictment”. In other words, even if it becomes common knowledge that Rove et. al. have been indicted, a seal would give them to plausible deniability to keep stonewalling.

Speaking of rumors, another big one from Steve Clemmons has Cheney stepping down and replaced by John McCain, Harrier Miers withdrawing, and the White House nominating an uber-conservative to spur a left-right fight that will distract from the Administration’s other troubles. Clemmons notes that the rumor stems from Republican circles which, to me, mean the rumors are equal parts wishful thinking and elephant shit. Despite conservative fantasies, Cheney wouldn’t step down to protect this Administration, McCain wouldn’t throw his political career away by jumping on board a sinking ship, and you’d have to be a complete moron to believe that a Supreme Court fight would be enough to distract people from an Administration reshuffling due to treason.

The rumor about Miers stepping down is something I’ve been meaning to comment on. At a certain point, the Administration will have to admit that backpedaling is less embarrassing than an inter-Republican fight in the Judiciary Committee. That said, I doubt the Miers fiasco will ultimately benefit conservatives as much as they think. From Bush’s standpoint, he’s nominating a stealth conservative that should slip beneath the radar, but his religious base is responding with a knife in the back. Needless to say, this isn’t going to make Bush feel like doing the religious right any favors next time around. If the President is still angry about the rebuke he got from the right over suggestions that Alberto Gonzales should be appointed, I think the easily-confirmable king of torture will take the next spot on our high court.

It seems like there are a few frayed nerves in Bushville:

You might have thought that the White House had enough on its plate late last month, what with its search for a new Supreme Court nominee, the continuing war in Iraq and the C.I.A. leak investigation. But it found time to add another item to its agenda - stopping The Onion, the satirical newspaper, from using the presidential seal.

The newspaper regularly produces a parody of President Bush’s weekly radio address on its Web site, where it has a picture of President Bush and the official insignia.

“It has come to my attention that The Onion is using the presidential seal on its Web site,” Grant M. Dixton, associate counsel to the president, wrote to The Onion on Sept. 28. (At the time, Mr. Dixton’s office was also helping Mr. Bush find a Supreme Court nominee; days later his boss, Harriet E. Miers, was nominated.)

Citing the United States Code, Mr. Dixton wrote that the seal “is not to be used in connection with commercial ventures or products in any way that suggests presidential support or endorsement.” Exceptions may be made, he noted, but The Onion had never applied for such an exception.

Does this mean I shouldn’t put one of these images on my site?

With only a few days left to toss around uninformed theories, here’s the latest Plame speculation which not only seems highly plausible to me, but further underscores the gravity of this scandal. Could Patrick Fitzgerald have evidence that the outing of Valerie Plame and her dummy company, Brewster, Jennings, & Associates, led to the murders of at least one CIA agent? Could that anonymous star in the CIA’s Book of Honor be the secret behind the eight classified pages in a court filing earlier this year? With phrases like “harmful to national security” and “gravity of the suspected crime” used by the judge who read those pages, we may be looking at something huge. If evidence that this leak caused serious harm to our country comes out in the indictments, well, let’s just say “criminalizing politics” will be the least of the Bush Administration’s worries.

Am I the only one annoyed by the term “Fitzmas”?